Blog Posts
Supreme Court ruling in Vasuez Perdomo v. Noem, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), allows ICE and Border Patrol to roam Los Angeles streets demanding proof of legal status upon suspicion of having entered the country without inspection. On application for stay of removal.
Cancellation of Removal
Simantov v. Bondi, Case No. 24-60487 (5th Cir. 2025)
INA Section 240A(b)(1) Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds denial of cancellation of removal to Uzbekistani native and citizen of Israel where Respondent provided insufficient corroborating evidence of U.S. Citizen daughter’s alleged illness.
INA Section 240A(b)(2) Although Respondent’s ex-wife bullied him and obtained a default divorce decree awarding her full custody of the children, such actions did not rise to the level of “battery or extreme cruelty” required to show eligibility for cancellation based on Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
Motions to Reopen
Myers v. Bondi, No. 23-3286 (8th Cir. 2025)
8 C.F.R. Sections 1003.2(c)(1), (b)(2) Eighth Circuit affirms BIA decision denying Respondent’s motion to reopen, rejecting his claims that he 1) derived U.S. citizenship at age 17 when his adoptive mother naturalized; 2) was incompetent to represent himself pro se at his immigration hearing due to years of sexual abuse by said mother; and 3) feared persecution in his native Liberia based on sexual orientation.
INA Section 241(b)(3)(B) The court found Respondent’s asylum claims barred under this section because he had served at least five years in prison for a “particularly serious crime” related to attempted robbery. The court further denied as moot Respondent’s challenge based on a pending T-Visa because USCIS had already denied the application and Respondent had been removed.
Bent v. Garland, No. 22-1910 (9th Cir. 2024)
Cal. Penal Code Section 1473.7(a)(1) vacated Bent’s previous felony conviction based on an involuntary plea violating the Fifth Amendment; not just to mitigate collateral immigration consequences. The BIA misconstrued the nature of such vacaturs, improperly denying Bent’s motion to reopen (MTR). The MTR was not “frivolous,” but rather timely filed because the “material change in law” equitably tolled statute of limitations.
contact@siewlaw.org
SIEW LAW 